metroidfandomcom-20200222-history
Template talk:Conjectural
The following is an archive of Template talk:Unknown Name. USR It should be chanfged to unknown sapient race, not unknown sentient race. :I don't believe so, we intend sentient. I don't know if we can say that they are wise (sapient), but we can say they are sensing and perceiving (sentient). Also, please remember to sign your talk page and forum comments with four tildes (~~~~). --[[User:FastLizard4|'FastLizard4']]{ADMIN} (Talk• •Logs) 00:16, January 6, 2010 (UTC) So your saying we can't say that Humanoid creatures are "wise", and we can't say that normal creatures feel? No, here. We Homo sapiens ''are wise. Yes, wise. We are also Sentinent. Cats are wise, in their own way. But all living beings are sentinent. We are aware of our surroundings. Look ar a sunflower. (all plants would work, but a Sunflower is especially noticable.) Its head turns toward the strongest light it can find. Basically, it knows where the sun is, and during the niight, it turns toward your patio light. It's not wise, but it's sentinent. 07:22, September 23, 2011 (UTC) Confusion It's getting really hard to find things on this template, especcially with so many new ones added. I suggest that we alter the template so that each creature/plant/planet/person is assigned a fan name while the article itself is headed with the same number as before. For example, UCB 1 could be nicknamed "SR277" on the template, while the article retains the same title as before. This is just for ease of finding, it's takes me hours to find some specific creature on the template and altering this system just a *wee* bit could allow it to become more user-friendly.[[User:Tuckerscreator|'Tuckerscreator']] 18:19, May 27, 2010 (UTC) RBX You can't just pull them off the template. If you don't realign them, then it looks very sloppy, as it does now. 'ChozoBoy' http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 18:49, August 5, 2010 (UTC) :This template is going to be a huge mess when all the other M creatures have names confirmed. Articles about them shouldn't have been made before the games release, imo. Here is my rant about the ulf policy, seeing as it seems to be ignored on Forum:Unknown Name System: ::I am largely opposed to the whole system. It's created a huge number of articles that are worthless stubs, makes it difficult to find the right article due to the naming system, is confusing (to the public as well, demonstrated by ONM) and also creates holes in the numerical part of the article's name when an official name is discovered. Fan names are a much better idea. I propose a "best guess" system, like the one used in the scan sections on the room articles, where the title of the scan is taken from the scan itself. Obviously, this would only work in the prime game's articles, and when the topic can be scanned. Tardis wikia has a similar system, and it's much better than the ULF one imo: http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Saturnynian ::Unfortunatley, I was unable to register my opinion during the voting period, as I was on holiday and did not have an internet connection at the time. Another reason I really dislike the ULF pages is because it encourages pages about topics that will be given a name in the future anyway! This creates speculation on these articles, is really unnecessary. Plus when they are given names then the template redirects to them, and creates "numerical holes" in the numbering of the pages (as mentioned above). I would really like to see the whole project scrapped. [[User:Hellkaiserryo12|Hell''Kaiserryo12]]ADMIN] (Talk• ) 19:09, August 5, 2010 (UTC) This is kind of OT, but it doesn't need to be a mess just because several are receiving names. There isn't any reason that we shouldn't start covering an in-universe subject just because it is awaiting a title. Like I've said before, I didn't get the impression that ONM was confused. That seemed way more like a nod towards us to me. Fan names (especially the ones that have no basis in official media) are infinitely more confusing than a number system with templates that explain it. ChozoBoy http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 19:43, August 5, 2010 (UTC) I think the real problem with covering enemies from an unreleased game is that we don't know for sure if some of these are even new enemies. The magdollite-lookalike could easily just be a magdollite, and bingo, we wasted another slot. Maybe that's not actually a ki-hunter, but a close relative. Art styles change often and enemy designs with them. Until they're actually confirmed (Ghalmilion sp?, Dracotex, etc), I don't think we should cover them. One of the Zelda wikis just has a page for "unknown enemies from game name" or something like that. I like that system, personally. As far as unnamed subjects in the actual released games go... the unidentified system seems okay to me. Dazuro 20:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC) Single pages for future game subjects were something I'd considered and think would work. We can definitely do that next go-round. ChozoBoy http://metroid.wikia.com ADMIN (Talk/ ) 20:27, August 5, 2010 (UTC) I like Dazuro's idea. Dedicate an entire page for the upcoming and unnamed creatures from Other M, but keep the unidentified system for the already released games. But at this time, the game is coming out in like... 20 days or something? Worth it? (Latinlingo 22:25, August 5, 2010 (UTC)) Add Unknown Strategic Objects Yes. Add USO's. This has been stated before. See a bridge too far's talk. THAT has to be in there too! It's an astrology name from a stupid little paragraph. It's not really the best to have like this... Plus the Secret Message? That's got to be there too. Also, other common sequence breaks should be in there that have names that are not making sense, names that are stupid, or names that have little to no connection with the glitch or SB. 07:32, September 23, 2011 (UTC) :A bridge too far IS a name. Secret message is a MAYBE, since it was deliberate. Unintentional sequence breaks, gameplay exploits (technically Rapid Fire Missiles isn't a glitch, but is an exploit of how switching between missiles and beams work), and glitches are a no. Sequence breaks and glitches should be considered above the unknown name policy (there really needs to be an RfA created about this because this was beyond the intention). They are usually unintentional and the creators would most likely never name them, especially considering how they are trying to kill sequence breaks. Usually. And glitches are NEVER intentional (otherwise they wouldn't be glitches), so they obviously wouldn't ever receive an official name. And do you know HOW MANY things could fall under this category? A ton. :These kinds of things have more significance to the fanbase than the actual universe. Common courtesy of the sequence breaking community is to go with the name the creator gave it if any or the widely used term and to keep from using inconsistent terminology. Heck, the first known usage of the term "Sequence breaking", which is now used in regards to many video games, was in one of the sequence breaking threads of Metroid Prime at GameFAQs. Besides most of those names have a connection to the glitch or break. Even mockball. The third definition for mock at dictionary.com is "to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit." The mockball is where the morph ball "mocks" the effect of the run button. The only one you could qualify as stupid is the ghetto jump. It is called a ghetto jump because it feels rather... ghetto. But it has become the general term that it is refered to. :Basically, when it comes to glitches, sequence breaks, and exploits, you really should use the name that is used at Metroid2002, Speed Demos Archive, and the like. :Speaking of which, we don't have an actual official policy page for the UN system. We really should make one. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 18:16, September 23, 2011 (UTC) :What do you mean, "Usually"? Zero Mission's fine! I don't care that I can sequence break easily on it, I won't go so far as to go into Ridley before Kraid. I have gotten the Hijump early however. 10:24, September 24, 2011 (UTC) ::I meant that sequence breaks are usually unintended by the developers. However, it was intentional in ZM. I can't think of any examples of any other games in the series where sequence breaks were clearly intentional (You can argue SM with the wall jump and the shinespark but who knows). The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 19:14, September 24, 2011 (UTC) ::Well, if they're trying to cut down on Sequence Breaking, why did they not use the mechanics they used in Fusion in ZM? Not that I'm complaining, Bomb Jumping's gotten me out of tight spots. But I, before this month, have never Sequence Broken because I never intended to. I'm happy for the fact they allowed Sequence Breaking in there, but why would they? 03:46, September 26, 2011 (UTC) :::I don't really know why. I mean obviously to add depth to the game, but still. It is a mystery... Maybe to compromise for the fact that the original was almost a wide open sandbox but to still provide some sense of natural progression? I only sequence break in ZM to get good endings. Early screw attack for the win. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 19:51, September 26, 2011 (UTC) :::I never actually thought of them as intentional. But the deliberate nature of the ZM sequence breaks- adding whole rooms, breakable blocks that have absolutely no other reason to be there, and the like- makes me suspect that the devs were either trying to add in replay value for experianced players, or providing a way to get low completion at very very fast times. "My name is [[User:AdmiralSakai|'AdmiralSakai']], and I approve this message." 23:18, September 26, 2011 (UTC) The following is an archive from Template talk:Unverified Name. This template should pretty much be removed from all pages about glitches and unintended techniques. Nintendo will never name them. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 19:06, September 23, 2012 (UTC) :I'll do that. --Mr. Anon (talk) 19:07, September 23, 2012 (UTC) Hold on, I disagree. The point isn't to be eagerly awaiting Nintendo's naming of any of the subjects with the template, it's to inform the reader that the name is a fan-name/fanon. ChozoBoy (Talk/ ) 08:11, September 24, 2012 (UTC) That is when you use the template at the top of Unknown Name articles. --Mr. Anon (talk) 12:19, September 24, 2012 (UTC) :That template is for unnamed subjects with abbreviated-numeric names. (ex: ULF #, etc.) The Unverified Name template was created for when a name is fan-created, suspected of being so, or is of otherwise dubious origin. (Thus, "unverified.") ChozoBoy (Talk/ ) 16:47, September 24, 2012 (UTC) ::I think the wording might need a change. Something along the lines of "this article name may not reflect the subject's official or canonical name. A name from an official source may be required, (and maybe also) or no official name exists." The current text seems to suggest that the unofficial name is wrong, and a new one must be found or the article could be deleted. A lot of these articles will likely never be named, so i think a new wording would reflect this. [[User:Hellkaiserryo12|''Hell''Kaiserryo12]]ADMIN] (Talk• ) 20:52, September 24, 2012 (UTC) :::Exactly. The "Verification or an alternate name from an official source is required." line is why I wanted it removed. Currently it is a clean-up type template. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 21:04, September 24, 2012 (UTC) ::::Feel free to change it. My position has always been that unofficial names are always wrong. In my opinion, if glitch articles exist then they should be marked as fan names that need to be addressed in the same manner as other fanon material, unless they have been referenced in official media (such as the Secret Worlds discussed prominently in Nintendo Power). I'd like to see these types of articles consolidated into a single glitch article, if not multiple based on game. (Depending on quantity.) ChozoBoy (Talk/ ) 04:41, September 25, 2012 (UTC) Edit warring Ok, I don't even want to start asking what this is, but since I am an admin: What in the blazes is going on? There wasn't even a discussion on the talk page as to why that was reverted, and this is pretty much flatout edit warring. I'm looking at RBX in particular, but really there hasn't been a single word on the talk from any of you 3 (that is, RBX, MG, and HK). Mind moving the discussion out of your edit summaries? --'RAN1' {ADMIN} (talk • • logbook) 21:54, June 23, 2013 (UTC) :We were discussing it on IRC whilst it was happening, so apologies for that. As to the actual warring, my edit was to change the picture to a transparent one for better appearance, however the Core X image had been reverted to the Hardy one which should have resulted in an edit conflict but didnt, making it look like I had changed the image back for no reason. [[User:Hellkaiserryo12|''Hell''Kaiserryo12]]ADMIN] (Talk• ) 23:59, June 23, 2013 (UTC) ::Pretty much what HK said. I was about to fix the issue with the template introduced with the edit (he accidentally removed some /div tags, which caused the template to devour pages), but Roy rolled back the entire edit instead. Roy reintroduced the Hardy image, which I was ok with, but HK completely missed that conversation, and somehow didn't get an edit conflict (that glitch is really annoying). I had to add back the /div tags due to that glitch. We talked about which image to use on IRC, I forget the result. TheMG {talk/ } 01:57, June 24, 2013 (UTC) :::Having made the original edit that started this I would like to request that the relevant discussion/conclusions be made available. Personally I feel that the image from the comic is less than satisfactory and prefer Hellkaiserryo's transparent idea. I chose the Mega Core-X as I felt it was a good example of the sort of name this template refers to. The comic image is even more obscure and simply repeats a quote that is better used as the establishing quote for this template. Phalanx (talk| ) 10:55, June 24, 2013 (UTC) The following is an archive from Category talk:Unverified Name. I propose we remove all glitches and techniques here, since they are very unlikely to get names ever. --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 21:27, October 30, 2011 (UTC) Ahem... I'd like to bring light back to this. --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 21:00, November 12, 2011 (UTC) :Agreed. Especially with Nintendo and Retro's mentality with such things. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 22:49, November 12, 2011 (UTC) So should I remove them? --[[User:RoyboyX|'रॉ'यल'ड़'काए'क्स']] (Talk • • UN) 22:50, November 12, 2011 (UTC) :I'd like to wait a little. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 23:24, November 12, 2011 (UTC) bump I'd like to bring this to light again. --[[User:RoyboyX|'R'o'y'b'o'y'X']] (Complaints Box • ) 23:14, November 17, 2011 (UTC) :*shrugs* Just go ahead. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/ } 23:46, November 17, 2011 (UTC)